Hardly news
Besides higher stall speed where square root of ratio of stall speeds shows the Lancair will have well over 2 times the energy to dissipate in a crash, assuming min speed.
(84/55)^2 = 233% more energy I think the lancair number is wrong
Second Fiberglass is not good for crashing. The relatively brittle (in engineering terms) composites don't give, deflect, yield and absorb energy and eventually just rupture. Not just the material, its the shape. Progressive rupturing can dissipate energy in a controlled way
In the last 6 months there have been many Lancair crashes and most just left a burn mark. They all burned to the ground and there was tragically loss of life. Fuel tanks just shatter. RV10s are not doing too well so far either
...........................
Any reply is welcomed but no personal attacks. If you dispute my facts or opinions fine, do so as a gentelman. Right Doug.
George,
(additional comments in
red above)
How about this one:
If you fly a GA airplane you are more likely to die.
Your headline "
More likely to die in a Lancair" is just not headline material. Numbers already cited in another post indicated that Lancair drivers are about 2.5 times as likely to die than RV drivers. No surprise and very consistent with ratios between FG & RG elsewhere in the GA fleet.
Is it really surprising that you are more likely to die in a faster airplane that is more complex to operate?
This is all about managing risk, not eliminating it. Otherwise, pick a different activity than flying. Here are things that increase the risk of dying beyond just being a GA pilot of small airplanes:
Flying an experimental airplane (the numbers say this is huge)
Flying with an automotive conversion engine (like the egg or others)
Flying aerobatics
Flying IFR
Virtually everyone one this web site has deliberately chosen to do at least one of those, which means they have deliberately chosen to increase their statistical probability of dying.
I gave away one of my books that had fatalities by model, but my recollection is that Mooney's were about 3x Cessna 182. Those airplanes are a good corollary to the Lancair RV question. The relative complexity, stall speeds, and cruise speeds have similar differences between these models. (I think you mis-stated the lancair stall speed)
The book I still have shows the following per 100k hours.
Likely fatal categories:
Stall: M20=0.8 C182=0.36
Airframe failure: M20=0.18 C182=0.12
Possibly fatal catagories:
Engine related: M20=3.42 C182=2.08
Runway undershoot: M20=0.37 C182=0.24
Runway overshoot: M20=1.01 C182=1.21
Except in runway overshoot the Mooney looses hands down.
I looked at this information (and the fatal stats) very carefully both times I considered and bought a Mooney. Statistics are true and should not be ignored, but they do not necessarily convey information about underlying cause or ones individual probability of dying. My decision was to manage the risk. How I did that is off topic, but to date I'm still alive.
Between the time I got my Pvt in 1989 and when I sold my last Mooney in 2007 I had accumulated about 1100 hours total, about 700 of which was Mooney's mostly, but a little TB20 (complex, HP, higher stall than Mooney's).
I know those hours are dwarfed by many on this site, but here is the point:
Some of my peers who got their tickets around the same time or even later, and having fewer hours, are not with us today. I think the records will show that some died in slower and simpler airplanes than the Mooney. Some died in RVs
Look, I'm not trying to brag. I could auger in this week. Nevertheless, this cannot be ignored: Why am I alive and they are not, even though I was flying an airplane statistically 3 times as likely to cause my death than what they were flying?
Statistics of any kind are not deterministic. An obvious factor in flying is that statistics include pilots who manage the risk reasonably well, and others who don't. In simpler terms,
the pilot is the biggest factor in the risk equation. That's why accident investigations most often conclude "pilot error" rather than "flying a Lancair"
Also, you cannot determine an individual pilots relative risk of dying between two types of airplane simply by comparing the stall speed^2. That is not valid math at all. If it were, the airlines would have much poorer fatality rates than GA. Also, in that case you should sell your RV7 and getting an RV9, because by that logic you have increased your chance of dying by 35%.
The important thing is understanding what is driving the statistics and to take deliberate effort to at least minimize the key risk areas, and to do so while compromising your key mission objectives as little as possible.
But after thinking about above flying habits it really does not make much sense now to have a 4 place aircraft. I have taken the RV-9 test flight at the factory & flown in a 6a. The 9a would likely fit my mission the best. 100-350 mile cross countries mostly solo day trips. However the Lancair 320/360 LOOKS GOOD. I have a hp/complex endorsment in Bo's but only about 10hours current retract time. 240hrs total. We are also getting a NEW paved runway so that also made me think of Lancair
